|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules do not technically say what you interpret them to say.
They can be interpreted that way. That doesn't mean that they have to be interpreted that way. Or that they should be interpreted that way.
English does not lend itself to having complex things like rules having one objective meaning to get out of them. The more someone claims to have that one true reading, the further off from the rules they usually are.
re the video. Designing a closed system like a card game with 10 pages of rules is a LOT different than designing an open system like a role playing game with a 400 page rule book. It simply wouldn't be readable to most people if written in language precise enough to be stereo assembly instructions.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Everyone
PSA
This thread needs a bit of context, Altaica has been making a couple of posts on the boards that pertain to the same issue, unfortunately, Altaica is not including the relevant background here, nor is the thread title very specific.
If you want to look into it, it's likely easier to find those threads via her profile. The usual desire to ask "what happened" is praiseworthy, but it's just easier to just read those threads instead.
@Altaica
As I mentioned before, Paizo's level of technical writing would not be sufficient for something like a computer program but is sufficient for the vast majority of players that chose to support the company. Your interpretation is, to say the least quite rare and controversial, you have been given links where one of the authors of the CRB explained how that ended up in the book are supposed to work - that answer has later been turned into the FAQ that has also been provided to you.
For the purposes of Organized Play, those FAQs might as well have been added to the CRB.
You are perfectly in your right to argue, that Paizo's choice not to add explanations absolutely everywhere and update the CRB with references to later products (spontaneous divine spellcasters no being something the CRB expected) results in you having a low opinion of that product.
For the purposes of Organized Play, that issue is pretty clear, and if you want to search you can find many other issues that are far less resolved. That is part of the cost of having a huge selection of options.
A lot of people have given a lot of good suggestions to you, and while that PAX 2016 might be interesting, I am pretty sure that they didn't decide to base their CRB on innovations made to D&D when 3.0 was released. Maybe wait for Pathfinder 2 a fresh system usually has fewer issues like this one.
|
I'm completely lost as to what is being argued here, is there a quicker tldr than watching an hour long clip and casting an Augury spell?
tldr: The player is upset that 1st level oracles with a charisma of 20 don't get to cast a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th level spell due to high ability score.
slightly longer: Despite having the relevant rule explained multiple times and being pointed to the FAQ that explicitly says it does not work that way, the player has been arguing in many threads that his reading is "one possible interpretation" and that therefore he should be allowed to use those bonus spell slots even if everyone else is following the rules and FAQ.
edit:Blake's Tiger did a much better job of explaining this (below) than I did. Trying to engage the poster on the basis of what we know to be "correct" is unlikely to be helpful and will result in frustration all around.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm completely lost as to what is being argued here, is there a quicker tldr than watching an hour long clip and casting an Augury spell?tldr: The player is upset that 1st level oracles with a charisma of 20 don't get to cast a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th level spell due to high ability score.
slightly longer: Despite having the relevant rule explained multiple times and being pointed to the FAQ that explicitly says it does not work that way, the player has been arguing in many threads that his reading is "one possible interpretation" and that therefore he should be allowed to use those bonus spell slots even if everyone else is following the rules and FAQ.
A more accurate way to say it is that an individual with cognative rigidity has interpreted the rules one way and is distressed by neurotypical people (people without autism) having a different interpretation. He has percieved that the neurotypical insistance on the community accepted interpretation (invluding author confirmation of the community interpretation) is a bias against non-neurotypical people.
His difficulty navigating conventional wisdom and fluidity in language has led him to conclude Paizo's products are poorly written.
He is now searching (and sharing) for anything that supports his view and will reject anything that does not fit his view, not intentionally but because that is how his brain works.
Engage gently and with the understanding that it is extremely difficult to change a person with cognitive rigidity's mind.
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 20 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey Everyone --
I know that you're all frustrated with the communication issue, but I think our tone could be a lot better here.
★ --- ★ --- ★ --- ★
Altaica --
As the mom and aunt of three kids on the autism spectrum, I understand that the ruleset is not as clear as you would like. So here are my tips.
1) Accept that in PFS the ruleset comes from multiple sources: Book, FAQ, posts from Organized Play Leadership, and rulings from your table GM when rules are not clear.
Because the FAQ clarified the rulebook, it was a 'fix' for a rule that wasn't written correctly. Please follow the FAQ. You do not get bonus spells if you are not at a level where you can cast them.
2) Welcome to PFS. I know it's confusing, but you will start understanding the different layers of rules at some point.
FAQ & POSTS from Organized Play Leadership > Written Rules
Clue: Look at when things are posted. FAQs come later because they are fixes of rules that were unclear.
3) Your Table GM and the Venture Team are here to help you.
Please listen to them when they help clarify a rule. This will help the whole table play by the same ruleset so that it is fair and fun for everyone.
4) Your character will still be great, even if your oracle has to wait to cast those high-level bonus spells.
My advice? Now that you know the rule, remove the extra spells and just play her. It's more fun to play than to argue rules.
Respectfully yours,
Hmm
|
|
An individual with cognative rigidity has interpreted the rules one way and is distressed by neurotypical people (people without autism) having a different interpretation. He has percieved that the neurotypical insistance on the community accepted interpretation (invluding author confirmation of the community interpretation) is a bias against non-neurotypical people.
His difficulty navigating conventional wisdom and fluidity in language has led him to conclude Paizo's products are poorly written.
He is now searching (and sharing) for anything that supports his view and will reject anything that does not fit his view, not intentionally but because that is how his brain works.
BT, this is a much better way of explaining why these threads keep popping up. Do you mind if we all copy your text the next iteration?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The 'game as written' includes all of Paizo's official FAQs. Thus, everyone else _is_ running the game as written, at least on the issue I see you arguing about on so many threads right now, it is your interpretation that is not the game as written.
The problem with trying to explain that the alternative interpretation is the wrong one is similar but not identical to this:
A blind child is handed a piece of green sandpaper and red glass. His or her parent told them, "This is green and this is red."
Now the child holds a piece of green glass in his hand and says to a group of sighted people, "This is red!"
The sighted people try to explain how it is not red but green. The blind child attempts to explain to the sighted people why they are confused.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe that I have identified who the OP's local VO is based on statements made across the various threads. I'm fairly certain that the use of RVC is a result of a new player being unfamiliar with PFS terms (ie, I don't think the GM in question is their RVC, as the RVC is several states away from where the player has indicated they are). I could be wrong about that.
I've reached out the the local VO to make them aware of these threads and the FAQ. I don't really know how far their responsibility extends, but I thought they should be aware, as this is likely to come up at the next live game the OP attends.
Altaica, to add to Hillary's suggestions, I believe that you have indicated elsewhere that participating in Pathfinder Society is part of your therapy. I'm not a medical professional and can't offer that kind of advice, but as someone who has undergone counseling at various points in my life, I wonder if showing these forum threads to your therapist and talking through why the other posters are reacting the way they are might be beneficial.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It was said that it was unfair to ask my GM to continue to use the rules at he interpreted them because it was what the rule books technically said and break the unwritten rules.
I'll let Brandon "Rym" DeCoster & Scott Rubin explain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuThpe-Rgxs
I'm not sure who you got your initial advice from but the folks here and in the other thread are accurate and are giving you good guidance. So I would ignore the original direction you were provided and follow their correct information.
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Embracing neurodiversity can be challenging, but PFS provides an excellent framework for neuro-diverse friends to interact with others. There are rules. There's a mission. Everyone on the team is needed to work together and to solve problems together.
Kids on the autism spectrum like when group play is project-oriented. It gives them a way to meet people around an activity. PFS can be a great place for that.
Hmm
It was said that it was unfair to ask my GM to continue to use the rules at he interpreted them because it was what the rule books technically said and break the unwritten rules.
Are you saying that it's unfair for your GM to be corrected about the rules?
And that if they're running a PFS game, where everyone is to be following the same set of rules, they should be using the rules that everyone else is using?I'm sorry, Altaica, but who said it was unfair to correct a mistake? If it was on the boards can you please direct me to that post as I haven't seen anyone say anything like that in regards to you believing that a level 1 Oracle has access to level 5 spell slots.
I believe that a miscommunication has happened, possibly due to a lack of clarity.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Online—PbP
|
Warped Savant, I think you're misunderstanding Altaica. What Altaica is claiming someone posted was that it is unfair for Altaica to ask the GM to use Altaica's interpretation.
Here again, though, it's not 'unwritten rules' that the community consensus is insisting on. It is the rules as written in Paizo's official FAQ, which has equal weight with the things published in their books.